The ACLU thinks this is an endorsement?
Posted on November 30, 2007
ACLU: ACLU Thanks Mitt Romney for Acknowledging Its Good Work
NEW YORK – In last night’s debate, presidential candidate Mitt Romney pointedly advocated the captivity of suspected terrorists at the infamous Guantánamo Bay detention center. While disparaging the concept of providing counsel to accused suspects in U.S. custody – a core principle of our constitutional democracy - Romney suggested, in jest, that he “presume[d]†the American Civil Liberties Union represented Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks.
The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:
“Although the ACLU does not represent Mohammed, we are grateful to Governor Romney for recognizing our persistent fight on many fronts to restore the rule of law and combat the erosion of civil liberties that has plagued this country in the name of national security since September 11. Guantánamo is a shameful stain on our nation’s values and reputation throughout the world, and we – along with respected leaders of all political persuasions and millions of Americans – will continue to call for it to be shut down once and for all.â€
So, to the ACLU it is a compliment to be associated with the scum puddle who planned the worst attack on our soil in American history.
Yeah, the fact that we jail terrorists is worse than the murder of thousands of Americans.
It is not a “core principle” of our nation’s laws to bestow constitutional rights on terrorists whose only connection to this country is the fact that they decided to be unlawful combatants in order to kill Americans (no these aren’t shoe salesman caught up in some willy-nilly dragnet), in most cases, thousands of miles from our shores. Anyway, since when do we live in a “constitutional democracy?” The ACLU might want to take a basic government/civics course before it puts out a press release. Lemme help them out — the United States is a federal constitutional republic.
Memo to the ACLU: it is not a GOOD thing to be the first organization on many minds when the enemies of this country is the topic, no matter how you’d like to spin it. No, this ridiculous response didn’t cause Romney’s comment to backfire, it affirmed his point that the ACLU seems, in our civilizational struggle against Jihadists, that it can be relied upon to carry the banner of our enemies…and proudly.
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL
Comments
7 Responses to “The ACLU thinks this is an endorsement?”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Romero’s commentary was satirical, maybe you didn’t get that.
Duh Jerry, duh.
His “thanks” to Mitt Romney was tongue in cheek, but the defense of his organization and the rest of this message outside the sarcastic thanks is dead serious.
“Satire” is always used as a device to make a point. The points (mine and the ACLU’s) here are so blazingly obvious, I can’t even believe you thought you were “educating” anyone.
Hey, the genius, Jerry, is here and he misspelled Romney’s name. What a doofus, he must work for the ACLU.
And I had a fern named “Anthony” one time. I wondered what happened to it.
Who is educating? I don’t understand why if the ACLU defends suspected terrorists, not real ones, that they’re any different in your eyes than a defense lawyer who defends suspected criminals. For example, attorneys who have fought against wrongful convictions, such as those invalidated by DNA tests, are also worthy of condemnation because they–at one time–decided to defend a person who is widely considered an enemy of society? Your position that suspects should be represented in court because our our “civizational struggle” is paramount is disgusting. If you are ever suspected of a crime, I hope you receive the same treatment.
Big difference, genius. Read the link to “unlawful combatants” in my post.
Based on your latest comment, the distinction between US citizens committing individual crimes in this country and members of international terrorism networks plotting and carrying out operations to kill thousands of innocent Americans seems to be lost on you. Let me help you — these are not American citizens and they are not “suspected of committing crimes.” These are foreign, unlawful combatants AT WAR with this country…they do not have the “right” to access our civilian criminal justice system like a group of money launderers in Chicago. How could you not know the difference?
So now you admit the ACLU is taking pride in taking up for unlawful combatants over the national security interests of this nation? I thought it was “satire!”
Nice Jerry. Plotting, on foreign soil, the death of thousands of innocent Americans is the same thing as shoplifting in your eyes.
You’re missing the point entirely: those persons the government has labeled as “enemy combatants” are suspects of terrorism, not already-convicted terrorists. You assume that by defending suspects, the ACLU is complicit in whatever the charge may be. That is factually incorrect. When your attorney defends you against a drunk driving charge, he or she is not complicit in the act of drunk driving. The more broad point here is that representation is necessary for all defendants, regardless of the charge, because it is foundational to the rule of law.
I suspect that we fundamentally disagree about whether or not these are suspects. You assume that since the US military has deemed them “combatants” that they actually have taken up arms against the US. This is also not correct. Recall in 2006 that a US Supreme Court majority ruled to grant Mr. Hamdan habeas relief, a former limo driver for Osama Bin Laden, because the government couldn’t muster any evidence that implicated him as a terrorist. This is a case-and-point that there are innocent people at Guantanamo bay who necessitate the chance to defend themselves in court. The crux of this argument is not access to OUR courts but rather habeas relief to ANY court, as is required by the international laws of war.